Talk:MobyGames

Award

On the last day of the polls for the webby awards, mobygames had scored the least votes in its category by a large margin. Why on earth is that information being taken off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.109.53 (talk • contribs)

Why on Earth is it being added would be my question. The point of the Awards section is to show that the site had positive recognition. To add that the site was "the big loser" is counterproductive. The only point needed is that it was nominated, and not the winner - no more, no less. I'm not trying to glorify MG past its actual recognition, but the addition you've been making (and the fact it's your ONLY contribution to Wikipedia thus far) seems to me like personal disdain for MobyGames rather than useful fact-finding. --Vossanova ^o< 11:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Vossanova. We mention that they were nominated, and that is useful information. We don't need to say that they were the biggest losers. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I followed those awards closely, whilst Gamespot was the clear winner, the other 3 nominee's all recieved around the same number of votes, whilst Mobygames recieved so few votes it was striking. That stuck in my head so when I came across this article I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be added. Also, who are you quoting with the line - "the biggest loser"? It's not "counter productive" or misleading, just a fact, and like all facts it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.109.53 (talk • contribs)

It still reeks of negative bias. Why is it important that it received the fewest votes, and does that fact contibute to MobyGames' notability? Because if you're attempting to make a point, then go ahead and make it and we'll judge the change on that. See WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone. --Vossanova ^o< 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I agree with what Vossanova and Frecklefoot have written. I think the relative rank of MobyGames in the voting is not necessarily important except maybe to create some negative bias. Second, I think you may be a bit mistaken about the claims that were made. There are two Webby Awards. 1) The People's Voice Awards. This is something like a popularity contest. The public votes for the website in the category. During the voting the relative votes are displayed until three or four days before final tally is calculated. After that time the academy removes the results page and the number of votes and the relative position is not known until the results are announced. The results other than the winner in the category is not made public. 2) The Webby Award. Voting for this award is not public at all. Only members of the Academy are eligible to vote. The results other than the winner in the category is not made public. If you could provide a reference to corroborate the claim I would be interested in seeing it. --Flipkin 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding link to MG's game page

Instead of creating a regular link, you can use the following (using Magic Carpet as an example):
{{moby game|id=/magic-carpet|name=''Magic Carpet''}}

This will give you the following line:
Magic Carpet at MobyGames

(Can anybody tell me what the above is, a category, or code, or macro, or what? I can't seem to find the actual thing/code anywhere. Thanks! Retodon8 15:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a template I created. Not the best solution in the world (it could be eaiser to use, do more for users, etc.), but it's what we have for now. The code for it is at Template:Moby_game. BTW, when you use a template, as you did above, the edit page gives a link to all templates used on the page. So, when you made your comment above, if you hit "Show preview", the preview page would've shown what template was being used on the page just beneath the "Save page", "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons. If you edit this page, you'll see the "Templates used on this page:" list.  :) HTH. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Template... of course, I noticed it after you mentioned it. So... I have another question. would you be able to expand the template (or make a new one, but that's probably not the better solution) to include "game groups" as MG calls them? For instance the Commander Keen article discusses the entire series, so a link to gameGroupId,32/ is more appropriate. Thanks once more! Retodon8 23:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I was planning on it, but never got around to it, mainly because so few people were interested in using the initial one (I was also going to create one for people for their rap sheets). You can create one if you like, but don't expect a lot of support. I think MobyGames is a great resource for game info, but not too many other people think so... — Frecklefoot | Talk 03:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would use both templates. I would even make them, but I am not sure that is open to just anyone.--Flipkin 19:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've created a MobyGames developer profile template at template:moby developer.
{{moby developer |id=817 |name=John Romero's profile}}

renders as:
John Romero's profile at MobyGames
The id number is found in the MobyGames developer profile page URL. See Template talk:Moby developer for more usage information. Alphonze 11:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why link to MobyGames?

I don't understand why we're linking to MobyGames on every game page. IT's redundant. Wikipedia is itself a game database (or what's becoming one). --MightyGiant 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So Wikipedia will list dozens or hundreds of credits for every game? Have 20+ screenshots (per platform) illustrating every aspect of gameplay? I doubt that. MG has its unique qualities. TerokNor 10:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Credits Oni Credit

Extensive cover art Indigo Prophecy cover art

Extensive screenshots Age of Empires III screen shots

For the most part though Mobygames provides no real usefull information on games that isn't already on wikipedia. The way I see it, the links are put there to boost Mobygames traffic and pagerank rather than offer further information. Afterall, Who turns to an encyclopedia when they're looking for screenshots? And if credits are missing, why not add them to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.97.187 (talk • contribs)

Everything MobyGames contains is useful. Wikipedia will not carry the amount of information (screenshots, cover art, reviews) that MobyGames does. Plus, MobyGames uses a relational database, so data can be looked at in a variety of formats, information on Wikipedia can't.

But this has been brought up before on the Project and the consensus we came to was that every game should link to the MobyGames entry. We usually don't link to review sites, but MobyGames is more than just a review site (and not all games they contain even contain reviews) and it is arguably the largest database of video games on the Internet. I don't see any reason to stop linking to them, even if it does help their page rankings. If you want to contest it, bring it up on the Project's talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this consensus? I can't seem to find one Bgold4 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Spamming Moby Games links around is just that, spamming. Adding links that point to nearly blank pages isn't just spamming, its stupid and of course they will be removed when other editors look at the page. WP:EL is the Wikipedia's external links guideline, and it is plainly stated that external links should not be added by habit, but rather by individual merit. 2005 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the complete credits for games, which most entries as a bare minimum have, useful enough to merit inclusion. If all the entry has is just what the article states, then they shouldn't be added. But they usually do have more than what we'd normally include. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Often" is fine, perhaps even "usually". "Always" is not. Something like this is ridiculous. It's a violation of the external links guideline, and terrible philosophy, to habitually add such a link to an article. The link has to do what the guideline says, basically go over and above the article. Also, in general, articles should have credits, not external links. "Level of detail" is a key concept for external links. If the point of having an external link is to provide a few sentences of facts, then those facts should be incorporated into the article instead. Anyway, habitually adding these links is bad. Adding lame links is bad. Adding links where they have merit is fine. 2005 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Most MobyGames entries contain a high enough quality of information to merit linking to. Even a few of the ones with basic descriptions do have full credits and lots of cover scans and screenshots.--MartinUK 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I see that there can be some benefit to having MobyGames links inside Wikipedia articles, a majority of the MobyGames links add nothing that the article has not already included. It does feel like a majority of the MobyGames links have been added mindlessly to games articles. Often I have seen that the platform of the game in the link differs from the platform of the article (ie an Arcade version would have a link to an Amiga version). Clearly the person that added the link is doing just to spam the MobyGames link. Something really should be done about this as it's basically free advertising of a substandard database website. (Mathsgeek 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Someone (Wgungfu) has been adding the MobyGames link immediately after i have removed it for several articles. I had not be removing them blindly, for example the Bubble Symphony link (Bubble Symphony at MobyGames) is for the Saturn version and is virtually in skeleton form. This seems to just been added again for no good reason but to spam the MobyGames link on Wikipedia. (Mathsgeek 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

At least learn to read the page history. Nobody was "adding", your edits were being reverted. As was stated, it was decided by consensus to have Moby links at the bottom of every game page. Its policy of the Computer and Video Games Project. You can petition to change it there, but simply running through and removing links on a whim will only cause people to come back and maintain the policy. If you find an incorrect page is linked to, then link to the correct page. Don't completely remove the link. --Marty Goldberg 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. No Project can overide the external link guidelines, especially in such a ludicrous way. Moby games should never be at the bottom of every game page. They should only be there where the link is merited by WP:EL. It looks like a large cleanup of these links needs to be undertaken. Do not continue to add inappropriate links as that just creates work for other editors. 2005 21:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(In response to Wgungfu) OK fine, I don't mind the pedantic retorts and personal attack. I won't bother to revert any edits you've made, however I still disagree with the policy of the Computer and Video Games Project for adding MobyGames links. (Mathsgeek 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

That is not the policy. In fact, it is blatantly untrue. Any inappropriate Moby Games links you find should be removed. Deliberately adding them when inappropriate is spamming. 2005 21:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if I am wrong to remove the MobyGames links please can someone show me where this policy is to prove me wrong. --Mathsgeek 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mathsgeek started a discussion of this here, where it is more appropriate. 2005 22:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are blatantly incorrect. As Frecklefoot mentioned, it was decided by group consensus by members of the project after discussion and debate (which included the merits of KLOV and several other resource sites). Hence templates were created for adding said sites to the entries. --Marty Goldberg 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not incorrect. As mentioned in the other discussion, you need to read up on Wikipedia practices. First, there are very few "policies". There are more guidelines. WP:EL is the guideline for external linking. Any links that do not meet it, in this case low content or not directly on topic ones from Moby Games, should be removed. That is the guideline. Habitually linking anything, except an official site, is never acceptable. Also, just a tip for the future, if you insist there is consensus on something, provide a link to that discussion. 2005 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I will start to delete MobyGames links from Wikipedia. MobyGames is a commercial project and shouldn't be supported by Wikipedia. All the information MobyGames provides should be available at Wikipedia itself, not by linking the user to a commercial service. DCEvoCE (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a year old thread. I've replied further at your user talkpage. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I read your reply in which you ask for consensus before deleting the links. However, I can't find any consensus as for adding the links in the first place. Some individuals just suddenly started adding these links. That said, it is not required to keep these links until there is proof of a prior consensus for adding them. DCEvoCE (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't needed to delete links. That's silly. Any Moby Games links that don't meet WP:EL should be deleted. Any Moby Games pages that do meet the external links guideline can be linked. Moby games is no different than any other website. Linking to some of its pages will add value to articles, linking to some others won't. Some of the links have been COI spammed, and anything like that should be removed, but in general editors should look to see if a linked pages meets the external links guideline, and then act accordingly. 2005 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

He implied he was going to mass-delete all mobygames links from wikipedia. That requires a consensus. As you say, each link should be measured on its own value. Further reply at the current thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Removing MobyGames.com links. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no way in the world anyone can ask us to check 6000 links to MobyGames for anything of value. MG might be a good site, but 6000 links is just.... I don't know what it is... DCEvoCE (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So you use the number of links as the bottom line for your argumentation? Over 6,000 games have been released, each of those 6,000 links has the potential of linking to useful information. Some of the links have indeed been COI spammed, others were not. As suggested earlier, only the ones that don't meet WP:EL should be removed. (Sciere (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

Is there a fresh problem with good links being deleted? If not, this thread is months old, and it's best to not "stir the pot" if there aren't any new problems. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad i'm not the only one who's fed up with mobyspam on every videogame page. Too many times i visit the mobyspam link and theres little more than a cover shot and the title that I just remove them on sight now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.34 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a fresh problem, it would be better to start a new thread. However:

You removed a link to Apidya II from Apidya, yet that link included credits for the game, that we are never going to list here at Wikipedia (see previous history where this was agreed by all). For Peter Molyneux, the mobygames link provides the only source for his listing of credits/titles.

Please don't delete links, that other editors have stated they consider potentially valuable, without examining the content of them, and considering the wider point of view. That could be considered disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thank you. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to MobyGames should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If they don't augment what is already in the article, they should be omitted. But if they include more information (full credits, generous screenshots, helpful reviews) they should generally be included. Certainly some links fall in the former category and should be trimmed (but they may be added again later if the MobyGames entry becomes useful), but many fall in the latter category and should be retained. Being linked to from Wikipedia doesn't improve their page rank, so that isn't an issue. Check each MogyGames link before trimming to asses its value. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If MobyGames is going to be linked, then the info of many games ought to be linked from other websites, from classicgaming.com, to the Retrogaming Times Monthly newsletter, to GameSpot, to IGN, to GameFAQs, to some kid's GeoCities page at the Wayback Machine, etc. Also, http://lateblt.livejournal.com/23070.html read that. It's a blog entry, but it's valid on why MobyGames isn't what it's cracked up to be. Apple8800 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the bitter complaints of someone whose submissions were delayed or denied. Were you or someone you know the Anonymous commenter on March 6th? Doesn't look like there were any other replies that recent. See WP:VG/EL for external link guidelines.. sites focusing on news and reviews should usually be avoided. --Vossanova ^o< 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Jim Leonard isn't Jim Leonard

I see that someone created a link for Jim Leonard -- except it doesn't go to me, it goes to some dead sports person. I'm not a wikiexpert; what's the most graceful way of handling this? --Trixter 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

People with the same name are usually identified by either a middle initial or their unique job/role in parentheses (e.g. "Jim Leonard (American football player)" vs. "Jim Leonard (MobyGames founder)". Until someone makes a page for you (and it doesn't get deleted), I would disable any Jim Leonard links associated with MobyGames. --Vossanova ^o< 20:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip -- I'll go a'disabl'in right now. --Trixter 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability?

Some editors question this website's notability. Why doesn't it being probably the largest online resource for information on video games make it notable? Am I missing something here? Can someone who knows how to quell these questions please write something to satisfy these editor's suspicions? I would, but I don't know how to write to make it clear that this website is very notable. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source you gave just restates MobyGames' own description of itself, so it's not really an outside source. We can still write something on how MG claims to be the largest games database on the internet (using the site itself as a source), and add some brief stats to back up that claim. It would be good to mention other major sites that have used MobyGames as a reference. --Vossanova ^o< 17:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to add a claim that this is the largest game database on the web, it needs to be reliable. I just removed a reference which seemed to have supported this claim, but the same or similar wording was used on numerous websites. There was zero evidence that the blurb was not provided by MobyGames. --- RockMFR 19:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking about being the largest games database aside, how can a site nominated for a Webby award not be notable? It also has numerous actual game developers contributing information, and groups a variety of information, in a relational way, for single games in a way that no other websites do at a similar scale (34,000 games and counting). I'm baffled. (Sciere 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

It's not "nitpicking" to require what Wikipedia policy requires. There are clear ways to establish notability. A website saying "I am notable" is not one though. 2005 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He just gave you several examples. What about them don't establish notability? --Trixter 05:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for notability are at Wikipedia:Notability (web). nadav (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The site has been used as a source for papers and publications at different universities, there is currently a project using the site at MIT Sloan School of Management, and other sites that are probably considered notable such as Gamasutra use it as a reference in features. To clear this out, do I have to post the references and links here, or in the actual article? --- Sciere 07:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have no affiliation with MobyGames, then feel free to add it to the article as you see fit. If, however, you are related to the organization (see WP:COI), then you should put them in a new section on this talk page so that others can take a look at the sources first. nadav (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"He just gave you several examples." Let's not be silly. He gave no examples. The one that was attempted to be added was something from the site itself, which obviously is of no value. I think the site is notable, but why is it so hard for anyone to post something here? As the above comment states, there is a simple process. Just do it instead of pretending it has been done. 2005 08:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting the notability tag back up until consensus here is reached. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am active as a contributor and an approver (QA guy) for the site, so not affiliated with the site itself or the creators, just like anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. Using Amazon's Search Inside the Book function, below are a few books, independent from MobyGames, where the site was used as a source and a reference:

• Rusel DeMaria, Johnny L. Wilson, High Score!: The Illustrated History of Electronic Games, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Osborne Media; 2 edition (December 18, 2003), ISBN-10: 0072231726
• Katherine Isbister, Better Game Characters by Design: A Psychological Approach (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive 3D Technology), Morgan Kaufmann; Pap/Cdr edition (June 5, 2006), ISBN-10: 1558609210
• Christy Marx, Writing for Animation, Comics, and Games, Focal Press (October 25, 2006), ISBN-10: 0240805828
• Jean Swanson, Dean James, The Dick Francis Companion, Berkley Trade; Berkley Pr edition (July 29, 2003), 0425181871
• Sheri Graner Ray, Gender Inclusive Game Design: Expanding The Market (Advances in Computer Graphics and Game Development Series), Charles River Media; 1 edition (September 2003), ISBN-10: 1584502398
• Jason Rutter, Jo Bryce, Understanding Digital Games, Sage Publications Ltd (May 24, 2006), ISBN-10: 1412900336
• Ari Feldman, Designing Arcade Computer Game Graphics, Wordware Publishing; Bk&CD-Rom edition (November 1, 2000), ISBN-10: 1556227558

I assume this is sufficient for the first criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (web) -- Sciere 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do a cursory Google Books search. It's notable. but some sources would be nice. Just for the record, I am in no way affiliated with MobyGames, nor do I know anyone who is. Abeg92contribs 05:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the references from Sciere, and 3 titles from the googlebook search. Thanks for your help folks. --Quiddity 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article's neutrality has been tagged as disputed for quite a while now. It refers to the Talk Page to discuss the neutrality, but there is no discussion here. I offer to rewrite the disputed parts, but the tagger should highlight the parts that need rewording here first. I believe it refers to statements such as "largest online games database", which are no longer part of the article in its current form. --Sciere 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Too bad this is a blog entry, but it gives some points. http://lateblt.livejournal.com/23070.html I just hope nobody at MobyGames is editing this article themselves. Apple8800 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would you hope that? Of course they are.. not to mention several admins/reviewers commented on that blog page. If edits are deemed biased or promotional, they'll be reverted like anyone else's. --Vossanova ^o< 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Able to Choose a Password for your Account

Does MobyGames allow you to choose a password, or is one randomly given to your account? I was asking this because on the account creation screen, I don't see a "password" box. Keyboard mouse (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're not the Moby help desk, but, yes, you can choose your own password. I don't know where and when, but I can tell my password is one I made up and not one assigned to me. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mention linking in main?

I'd like to add a Note in the main body about linking using the moby tag. Any reason not to? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MobyGames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120305005852/http://www.webbyawards.com:80/webbys/current.php?season=10 to http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=10#webby_entry_games_related

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Is MobyGames a reliable source?

Can this website be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia? Mateussf (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Officially it's listed as an unreliable source for the video games sub-project of Wikipedia. I use it to double-check release dates and credits. Dgpop (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)